|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Some Bridge digital cameras ive hard on marketing may fall under the category of 'superzoom cemeras' and describes as such, due to their large zoom ranger compared to normal compact/Live-preview_digital_cameras.
Some updating needed?
Isn't it getting a little out-of-date now to suggest that 4× zooms and upwards are "unconventionally large"? My camera, for example (a Canon PowerShot A710IS) has a 6× zoom, but is not considered a superzoom, bridge or prosumer model. And that's not even a current model. (Yes, I know this article is about SLRs, but where do cameras like mine fit in? Bridge camera is just not the right place.) Loganberry (Talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Very out of date now. 4x is the norm for point and shoots. Many of the more expensive versions have 10x and Bridge Cameras such as the Pentax X70 or Nikon Coolpix P90 both advertise 24x SLR-like (super) zoom. According to the article 20x is high end. Obviously this is so outdated the facts are
beginning to beplain wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the article to only classify double digit zooms as "superzooms" and removed a lot of low zoom ratio lenses from that huge, superfluous product list. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Added Synthesis tag to the article because there is lots of description of a type of lens (Superzoom) but no reliable (or even unreliable) sources making these claims or describing a class of lens "Superzoom". There needs to be sources describing this as a real type, not a hodgepodge of references to articles or manufacturing docs describing high zoom lenses. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- You want to question the article title and its sense?
- Thats not the right tag for your reason. Again: Inline tags are better, as they can be related to the argument itself.
- Don't be vague. Find an exact reference if you think there is a reliable source giving the ABSOLUTELY right, FINAL answer.
- IMHO too much tag and words for a simple figure. Do you like discussions which can never be solved? Tagremover (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Available sources do not use the term "Super Zoom" at all. Recovering one of the unreadable sources shows only usage, no definition. None of these are reliable sources. No published reliable sources and using published sources where the editor has assembled (synthesized) what he/she thinks is proper usage means the ARTICLE "contain(s) previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources". So the tag describes the problem. If you do not want to fix the problem or tag the article so other editors can fix the problem the only other step is AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Surprisingly unrealistic and pointless. Do you want to delete ship and boat for watercraft? Is this a real question, are you lonely or seeking a quarrel?
- Fact: Refs and uses for "Superzoom" are plentiful
- Fact: Article exists since 2004, since 2006 as an own article
- Fact: YOU will NEVER find an exact definition !
- Hopefully this helps and is the end of discussion. Tagremover (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Update: A technology section was planed by me for some time and is done in the next months. Tagremover (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Errr.. uses (of) "Superzoom" may be valid for Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. You need to read WP:V and WP:RS, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not "sources", no matter how "plentiful" they are. Lots of articles from 2004 have been deleted, age does not = encyclopedic quality. And we are not talking about exact definitions, this article has no definitions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)